Indirabai Chotu Pardeshi vs Macchindra Budha Jadhav Advocate - Gujarathi P. N. — 1400030/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 31st March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHDH060005512015
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1400062/2015
Filing Date
30-06-2015
Registration No
1400030/2015
Registration Date
30-06-2015
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Shindkheda
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C.Shindkheda
Decision Date
31st March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Indirabai Chotu Pardeshi
Adv. Gujarathi A. H.
Respondent(s)
Macchindra Budha Jadhav Advocate - Gujarathi P. N.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C.Shindkheda
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 30-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 23-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking mandatory and perpetual injunction against the defendant for alleged unauthorized construction and property encroachment. The judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish valid ownership of the disputed property (Plot No. 53), as it was originally allotted under a government scheme with conditions prohibiting sale without the Collector's prior permission, which the plaintiff could not prove was obtained. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to provide conclusive evidence of the alleged encroachment through proper surveying, relying only on oral testimony, making the claim unenforceable and the plaintiff ineligible for the equitable relief of injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking mandatory and perpetual injunction against the defendant for alleged unauthorized construction and property encroachment. The judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish valid ownership of the disputed property (Plot No. 53), as it was originally allotted under a government scheme with conditions prohibiting sale without the Collector's prior permission, which the plaintiff could not prove was obtained. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to provide conclusive evidence of the alleged encroachment through proper surveying, relying only on oral testimony, making the claim unenforceable and the plaintiff ineligible for the equitable relief of injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts